ENBANC

JOSELITOR.MENDOZA, G.R.No.191084
Petitioner,
Present:

PUNO,*C.J.,
CARPIO,**
CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
versus BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA,JR.,
PEREZ,and
MENDOZA,JJ.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND ROBERTO M. Promulgated:
PAGDANGANAN,
Respondents. March25,2010

xx

DECISION


PEREZ,J.:

Whenthelanguageofthelawisclearandexplicit,thereisnoroomforinterpretation,onlyapplication.And
if statutory construction be necessary, the statute should be interpreted to assure its being in consonance
[1]
with, rather than repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription. It is upon these basic
principlesthatthepetitionmustbegranted.

Thefactualandproceduralantecedentsarenotindispute.

Petitioner Joselito R. Mendoza was proclaimed the winner of the 2007 gubernatorial election for the
provinceofBulacan,bestingrespondentRobertoM.Pagdangananbyamarginof15,732votes.On1June
2007, respondent filed the Election Protest which, anchored on the massive electoral fraud allegedly
perpetratedbypetitioner,wasraffledtotheSecondDivisionoftheCommissiononElections(COMELEC)
as EPC No. 200744. With petitioners filing of his Answer with CounterProtest on 18 June 2007, the
as EPC No. 200744. With petitioners filing of his Answer with CounterProtest on 18 June 2007, the
COMELECproceededtoconductthepreliminaryconferenceandtoorderarevisionoftheballotsfromthe
contestedprecinctsindicatedinsaidpleadings.

Upon the evidence adduced and the memoranda subsequently filed by the parties, the COMELEC
Second Division went on to render the 1 December 2009 Resolution, which annulled and set aside
petitionersproclamationasgovernorofBulacanandproclaimedrespondentdulyelectedtosaidpositionby
a winning margin of 4,321 votes. Coupled with a directive to the Department of Interior and Local
Governmenttoimplementthesame,theresolutionorderedpetitionertoimmediatelyvacatesaidoffice,to
ceaseanddesistfromdischargingthefunctionspertainingtheretoandtocauseapeacefulturnoverthereof
torespondent.

Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing resolution with the
COMELEC En Banc. Against respondents Motion for Execution of Judgment Pending Motion for
Reconsideration, petitioner also filed an Opposition to the Motion for Execution before the COMELEC
SecondDivision.On8February2010,however,theCOMELECEnBancissuedaResolution,effectively
disposingoftheforegoingmotions/incidentsinthiswise:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Commission En Banc DENIES the Motion for
Reconsideration for lack of merit. The Resolution of the Commission (Second Division) promulgated on
December 1, 2009 ANNULLING the proclamation of JOSELITO R. MENDOZA as the duly elected
GovernorofBulacanandDECLARINGROBERTOM.PAGDANGANANasdulyelectedtosaidOfficeis
AFFIRMEDwithmodification.

Considering the proximity of the end of the term of office involved, this Resolution is declared
immediatelyexecutory.

ACCORDINGLY, the Commission EnBanc hereby ISSUES a WRIT OF EXECUTION directing
theProvincialElectionSupervisorofBulacan,incoordinationwiththeDILGProvincialOperationsOfficerto
implementtheResolutionoftheCommission(SecondDivision)datedDecember1,2009andthisResolution
of the Commission En Banc by ordering JOSELITO R. MENDOZA to CEASE and DESIST from
performing the functions of Governor of the Province of Bulacan and to VACATE said office in favor of
ROBERTOM.PAGDANGANAN.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local
Government,theProvincialElectionSupervisorofBulacan,andtheDILGProvincialOperationsOfficerofthe
ProvinceofBulacan.(Underscoringsupplied)

On 11 February 2010, petitioner filed before the COMELEC an Urgent Motion to Recall the
Resolution Promulgated on February 8, 2010 on the following grounds: (a) lack of concurrence of the
majority of the members of the Commission pursuant to Section 5, Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure(b)lackofrehearingpursuanttoSection6,Rule18oftheRulesand(c)lackofnoticeforthe
promulgationoftheresolutionpursuanttoSection5,Rule18ofsaidRules.InvokingSection13,Rule18of
the same Rules, petitioner additionally argued that the resolution pertained to an ordinary action and, as
such,canonlybecomefinalandexecutoryafter30daysfromitspromulgation.

On12February2010,petitionerfiledtheinstantPetitionforCertiorariwithanUrgentPrayerfor
the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Status Quo Order and Writ of Preliminary
Injunction. Directed against the 8 February 2010 Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc, the petition is
noticeablyanchoredonthesamegroundsraisedinpetitionersurgentmotiontorecallthesameresolution
beforetheCOMELEC.Inaddition,thepetitionerdisputestheappreciationandresultoftherevisionofthe
contestedballots.

In the meantime, it appears that the COMELEC En Banc issued a 10 February 2010 Order,
schedulingthecaseforrehearingon15February2010,onthegroundthattherewasnomajorityvoteof
themembersobtainedintheResolutionoftheCommissionEnBancpromulgatedonFebruary8,2010.
Atsaidscheduledrehearing,itfurtherappearsthatthepartiesagreedtosubmitthematterforresolutionby
theCOMELECEnBancuponsubmissionoftheirrespectivememoranda,withoutfurtherargument.As it
turnedout,thedeliberationswhichensuedagainfailedtomustertherequiredmajorityvotesince,withthree
(3)Commissionersnottakingpartinthevoting,andonlyonedissenttherefrom,theassailed1December
2009ResolutionoftheCOMELECSecondDivisiononlygarneredthreeconcurrences.

IntheirrespectiveCommentsthereto,bothrespondentandtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralargue
that, in addition to its premature filing, the petition at bench violated the rule against forum shopping.
Claimingthathereceivedthe10February2010OrderoftheCOMELECEnBanclateinthemorningof12
February 2010 or when the filing of the petition was already underway, petitioner argued that: (a) he
apprised the Court of the pendency of his Urgent Motion to Recall the Resolution Promulgated on 8
February2010and,(b)thatthewritofexecutionensconcedinsaidresolutioncompelledhimtoresortto
thepetitionforcertioraribeforeus.

On4March2010,theCOMELECEnBancissuedanOrderfortheissuanceofaWritofExecution
directing the implementation of the 1 December 2009 Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division.

WhiletheCOMELECElectoralContestsAdjudicationDepartment(ECAD)issuedthecorrespondingWrit
of Execution on 5 March 2010, the record shows that COMELEC En Banc issued an Order on the same
date, directing the ECAD to deliver said 4 March 2010 Order and 5 March 2010 Writ of Execution by
personalservicetotheparties. Aggrieved, petitioner filed the following motions with the COMELEC En
Banc on 5 March 2010, viz.: (a) Urgent Motion to Declare Null and Void and Recall Latest En Banc
ResolutionDatedMarch4,2010and,(b)UrgentMotiontoSetAside4March2010EnBancResolution
GrantingProtestantsMotionforExecutionPendingMotionforReconsideration.

On 8 March 2010, petitioner filed before us a Supplement to the Petition with a Most Urgent
Reiterating Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or a Status Quo Order.
Contendingthatrespondentsprotestshouldhavebeendismissedwhennomajorityvotewasobtainedafter
the rehearing in the case, petitioner argues that: (a) the 4 March 2010 Order and 5 March 2010 Writ of
the rehearing in the case, petitioner argues that: (a) the 4 March 2010 Order and 5 March 2010 Writ of
Executionarenullandvoid(b)novaliddecisioncanberenderedbytheCOMELECEnBancwithoutthe
appreciationoftheoriginalballots(c)theCOMELECignoredtheCourtsrulingintherecentcaseofCorral
[2]
v.CommissiononElections and(d)theforegoingcircumstancesareindicativeoftheirregularitieswhich
attendedtheadjudicationofthecasebeforetheDivisionandEnBanclevelsoftheCOMELEC.

Despite receipt of respondents Most Respectful Urgent Manifestation which once again called
attention to petitioners supposed forum shopping, the Court issued a Resolution dated 9 March 2010
grantingtheStatusQuoAnteOrdersoughtinthepetition.WithrespondentsfilingofaManifestationand
Commenttosaidsupplementalpleadingon10March2010,petitionerfiledaManifestationwithMotionto
AppreciateBallotsInvalidatedasWrittenbyOnePersonandMarkedBalloton12March2010.

Thesubmissions,asmeasuredbytheelectionrules,dictatethatwegrantthepetition,setasideand
nullifytheassailedresolutionsandorders,andorderthedismissalofrespondentselectionprotest.

ThePreliminaries

More than the justifications petitioner proffers for the filing of the petition at bench, the public interest
involved in the case militates against the dismissal of the pleading on technical grounds like forum
shopping. On the other hand, to rule that petitioner should have filed a new petition to challenge the 4
March2010OrderoftheCOMELECEnBancistodisregardtheliberalitytraditionallyaccordedamended
and supplemental pleadings and the very purpose for which supplemental pleadings are allowed under
[3]
Section6,Rule10ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure. Moreimportantly,suchacourseofactionwould
clearlybeviolativeoftheinjunctionagainstmultiplicityofsuitsenunciatedinalongcatenaofdecisions
handeddownbythisCourt.

TheMainMatter

Acting on petitioners motion for reconsideration of the 1 December 2009 Resolution issued by the
COMELEC Second Division, the COMELEC En Banc, as stated, initially issued the Resolution dated 8
February 2010, denying the motion for lack of merit and declaring the same resolution immediately
executory. However, even before petitioners filing of his Urgent Motion to Recall the Resolution
Promulgated on 8 February 2010 and the instant Petition for Certiorari with an Urgent Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Status Quo Order and Writ of Preliminary
Injunction, the record shows that the COMELEC En Banc issued the 10 February 2010 Resolution,
orderingtherehearingofthecaseonthegroundthattherewasnomajorityvoteofthemembersobtained
intheResolutionoftheCommissionEnBancpromulgatedonFebruary8,2010.Havingconcededoneof
the grounds subsequently raised in petitioners Urgent Motion to Recall the Resolution Promulgated on
the grounds subsequently raised in petitioners Urgent Motion to Recall the Resolution Promulgated on
February8,2010,theCOMELECEnBancsignificantlyfailedtoobtainthevotesrequiredunderSection
[4]
5(a),Rule3ofitsownRulesofProcedure forasecondtime.

The failure of the COMELEC En Banc to muster the required majority vote even after the 15
February 2010 rehearing should have caused the dismissal of respondents ElectionProtest. Promulgated
on15February1993pursuanttoSection6,ArticleIXAandSection3,ArticleIXCoftheConstitution,
theCOMELECRulesofProcedureisclearonthismatter.Withoutanytraceofambiguity,Section6,Rule
18ofsaidRulecategoricallyprovidesasfollows:

Sec.6.ProcedureifOpinionisEquallyDivided.WhentheCommissionenbancisequallydividedin
opinion,orthenecessarymajoritycannotbehad,thecaseshallbereheard,andifonrehearingnodecisionis
reached,theactionorproceedingshallbedismissediforiginallycommencedintheCommissioninappealed
cases,thejudgmentororderappealedfromshallstandaffirmedandinallincidentalmatters,thepetitionor
motionshallbedenied.

Theproprietyofapplyingtheforegoingprovisionaccordingtoitsliteraltenorcannotbegainsaid.As
one pertaining to the election of the provincial governor of Bulacan, respondents Election Protest was
originally commenced in the COMELEC, pursuant to its exclusive original jurisdiction over the case.
Although initially raffled to the COMELEC Second Division, the elevation of said election protest on
motionforreconsiderationbeforetheCommissionEnBanc cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be
consideredanappeal.Terselyput,thereisnoappealwithintheCOMELECitself.Asaptlyobservedinthe
lone dissent penned by COMELEC Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento, respondents Election Protest was
filed with the Commission at the first instance and should be, accordingly, considered an action or
proceedingoriginallycommencedintheCommission.

ThedissentreadsSection6ofCOMELECRule18tomeanexactlytheoppositeofwhatitexpresslystates.
ThuswasmadetheconclusiontotheeffectthatsincenodecisionwasreachedbytheCOMELECEnBanc,
thenthedecisionoftheSecondDivisionshouldstand,whichissquarelyinthefaceoftheRulethatwhen
theCommissionEnBancisequallydividedinopinion,orthenecessarymajoritycannotbehad,thecase
shallbereheard,andifonrehearing,nodecisionisreached,theactionorproceedingshallbedismissedif
originallycommencedintheCommission.The reliance is on Section 3, Article IX(C) of theConstitution
whichprovides:

Section3.TheCommissiononElectionsmaysitEnBancorintwodivisions,andshallpromulgateitsrulesof
procedureinordertoexpeditedispositionofelectioncases,includingpreproclamationcontroversies.Allsuch
election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions
shallbedecidedbytheCommissionEnBanc.

The dissent reasons that it would be absurd that for a lack of the necessary majority in the motion for
reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc, the original protest action should be dismissed as this
wouldrendernugatorytheconstitutionalmandatetoauthorizeandempoweradivisionoftheCOMELECto
decideelectioncases.
We cannot, in this case, get out of the square cover of Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules. The
We cannot, in this case, get out of the square cover of Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules. The
provisionisnotviolativeoftheConstitution.

The Rule, in fact, was promulgated obviously pursuant to the Constitutional mandate in the first
sentenceofSection3ofArticleIX(C).Clearlytoo,theRulewasissuedinordertoexpeditedispositionof
electioncasessuchthateventheabsenceofamajorityinaCommissionEnBancopiniononacaseunder
reconsideration does not result in a nondecision. Either the judgment or order appealed from shall stand
affirmedortheactionoriginallycommencedintheCommissionshallbedismissed.

ItiseasilyevidentinthesecondsentenceofSection3ofArticleIX(C)thatallelectioncasesbefore
the COMELEC are passed upon in one integrated procedure that consists of a hearing and a decision in
divisionandwhennecessitatedbyamotionforreconsideration,adecisionbytheCommissionEnBanc.

WhatisincludedinthephraseallsuchelectioncasesmaybeseeninSection2(2)ofArticleIX(C)ofthe
Constitutionwhichstates:

Section2.TheCommissiononElectionsshallexercisethefollowingpowersandfunctions:

xxxx

(2)Exerciseexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoverallcontestsrelatingtotheelections,returns,and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction
over all contests involving elective municipal of officials decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction.


Section2(2)readinrelationtoSection3showsthathoweverthejurisdictionoftheCOMELECisinvolved,
eitherintheexerciseofexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoranappellatejurisdiction,theCOMELECwillact
on the case in one whole and single process: to repeat, in division, and if impelled by a motion for
reconsideration,enbanc.

There is a difference in the result of the exercise of jurisdiction by the COMELEC over election
contests.Thedifferenceinheresinthekindofjurisdictioninvoked,whichinturn,isdeterminedbythecase
broughtbeforetheCOMELEC.WhenadecisionofatrialcourtisbroughtbeforetheCOMELECforitto
exerciseappellatejurisdiction,thedivisiondecidestheappealbut,ifthereisamotionforreconsideration,
theappealproceedstothebancwhereamajorityisneededforadecision.Iftheprocessendswithoutthe
requiredmajorityatthebanc,theappealeddecisionstandsaffirmed.Upontheotherhand,andthisiswhat
happenedintheinstantcase,ifwhatisbroughtbeforetheCOMELECisanoriginalprotestinvokingthe
originaljurisdictionoftheCommission,theprotest,asonewholeprocess,isfirstdecidedbythedivision,
whichprocessiscontinuedinthebancifthereisamotionforreconsiderationofthedivisionruling.If no
majoritydecisionisreachedinthebanc,theprotest,whichisanoriginalaction,shallbedismissed.Thereis
nofirstinstancedecisionthatcanbedeemedaffirmed.

Itiseasytounderstandthereasonforthedifferenceintheresultofthetwoprotests,oneasoriginal
action and the other as an appeal, if and when the protest process reaches the COMELEC En Banc. In a
protestoriginallybroughtbeforetheCOMELEC,nocompletedprocesscomestothebanc.It is the banc
whichwillcompletetheprocess.If,atthatcompletion,noconclusiveresultintheformofamajorityvoteis
whichwillcompletetheprocess.If,atthatcompletion,noconclusiveresultintheformofamajorityvoteis
reached, the COMELEC has no other choice except to dismiss the protest. In a protest placed before the
Commission as an appeal, there has been a completed proceeding that has resulted in a decision. So that
when the COMELEC, as an appellate body, and after the appellate process is completed, reaches an
inconclusiveresult,theappealisineffectdismissedandresultingly,thedecisionappealedfromisaffirmed.

Torepeat,Rule18,Section6oftheCOMELECRulesofProcedurefollows,isinconformitywith,
andisinimplementationofSection3ofArticleIX(C)oftheConstitution.

Indeed,thegraveabuseofdiscretionoftheCOMELECispatentinthefactthatdespitetheexistence
initsbooksoftheclearlywordedSection6ofRule18,whichincidentallyhasbeenacknowledgedbythis
[5]
CourtintherecentcaseofMarcoletav.COMELEC, itcompletelyignoredanddisregardeditsveryown
decreeandproceededwiththequestionedResolutionof8February2010andOrderof4March2010,inall,
annulling the proclamation of petitioner Joselito R. Mendoza as the duly elected governor of Bulacan,
declaringrespondentRobertoM.Pagdangananasthedulyelectedgovernor,andorderingpetitionerJoselito
R. Mendoza to cease and desist from performing the functions of the Governor of Bulacan and to vacate
saidofficeinfavorofrespondentRobertoM.Pagdanganan.

The grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC is underscored by the fact that the protest that
petitionerPagdangananfiledon1June2007overstayedwiththeCOMELECuntilthepresentelectionyear
when the end of the term of the contested office is at hand and there was hardly enough time for the re
hearingthatwasconductedonlyon15February2010.Asthehearingtimeatthedivisionhadrunout,and
the rehearing time at the banc was fast running out, the unwanted result came about: incomplete
appreciationofballotsinvalidationofballotsongeneralandunspecificgroundsunrebuttedpresumptionof
validityofballots.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned Resolution of the COMELEC
promulgated on 8 February 2010 in EPC No. 200744 entitled Roberto M. Pagdanganan v. Joselito R.
Mendoza,theOrderissuedon4March2010,andtheconsequentWritofExecutiondated5March2010are
NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The election protest of respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan is hereby
DISMISSED.

SOORDERED.

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIORENATOC.CORONA
ActingChiefJusticeAssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALESPRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURATERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRIONDIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMINMARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABADMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice




CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsin
 PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsin
theaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionof
theCourt.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
ActingChiefJustice

*Onofficialleave.
**PerSpecialOrderNo.826,SeniorAssociateJusticeAntonioT.CarpioisdesignatedasActingChiefJusticefromMarch1730,2010.
[1]
Mutucv.COMELEC,146Phil.798,805(1970),citingcases.
[2]
G.R.No.190156,12February2010.
[3]
Sec.6.Supplementalpleadings.Uponmotionofaparty,thecourtmay,uponreasonablenoticeanduponsuchtermsasarejust,permithimto
serveasupplementalpleadingsettingforthtransactions,occurrencesoreventswhichhavehappenedsincethedateofthepleadingsoughtto
besupplemented.Theadversepartymaypleadtheretowithinten(10)daysfromnoticeoftheorderadmittingthesupplementalpleading.
[4]
Sec.5.QuorumVotesRequired.(a)Whensittingenbanc,four(4)MembersoftheCommissionshallconstituteaquorumforthepurposeof
transacting business. The concurrence of a majority of the Members of the Commission shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a
decision,resolution,orderorruling.
[5]
G.R.No.181377,24April2009.